Conservatives who are now engaged with a ‘depends-on-what-the meaning-of ‘natural-born’,-is’ in order to get what they want, are really acting no different than the MarxoFascists who say the Constitution needs to ‘change with the times’.

Most of us understand the intent of requirement is that a presidential candidate MUST be born in the country to two American parents who are citizens. They were concerned about anyone having dual loyalties to ancestral nations being the Executive power.

Since Obama has set precedent that a candidate for President is qualified if their mob says they are, without any vetting or proofs beyond forged documents - then technically Putin could run for president.

Michigan Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm on Fox News Sunday responded to host Chris Wallaces clarification that as a Canadian, she is ineligible to run for president of the United States. Granholm came to the United States as a child of 4 years old.

Granholms response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a US Citizen, shes eligible.

GRANHOLM: No, Im totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when Ill stop. So I have no idea what Im going to do next, but Im not going to run for president. I can tell you that.

WALLACE: Yes, thats true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.

Yes, and Ted Cruz may remove himself as well just as Palin did when he sees the huge number of people on our side that he expects to have his back all fighting among themselves over whether he is eligible or not. As I said, we will deserve it if he says to hell with us.

Obamas father was something of a Kenyan elite, attending university here as part of an exchange program.

Not technically accurate. At the time Kenya did not exist, since it became a Commonwealth realm in 1963 and an independent republic in 1964. Senior was from British East Africa. As such not exactly a British subject or citizen, but kinda sorta.

I've never seen good documentation on what his exact citizenship status was at the time of Obama's birth.

IMO there is adequate documentation that Obama was born in HI. I understand some disagree, but it's not an argument I care to go around again on.

Most of us understand the intent of requirement is that a presidential candidate MUST be born in the country to two American parents who are citizens.

I'm not sure where you get the "most" part of this. Quite a number of conservatives, myself among them, believe natural born means citizen at birth. As opposed to a naturalized citizen.

However, for purpose of discussion let us assume your definition is correct. It is profoundly obvious that many millions of impeccably natural-born citizens, by your definition, feel no loyalty to America.

So the requirement, by whatever definition, has failed in its purpose. I don't think even technical violations of the Constitution should be ignored, but the notion that natural born citizens are more loyal is just flatly untrue in today's world.

There's not a single major legal scholar in the entire country, or a single significant conservative legal foundation, who makes that claim.

Not one.

Every historian, every constitutional lawyer, every constitutional law professor, every politician, every party functionary -- and all of the politically-aware citizens -- knew from the time of his announcement that Barack Obama's daddy had been born in Kenya. And was, thus, a British subject and, subsequently, a citizen of Kenya. And that he was in the USA on a student visa when he fathered Barack Obama II.

Barack Obama II was even at pains to tell us all this in his books.

Yet, nobody, absolutely nobody, nary a one of these acknowledged and "well-educated" experts raised a solitary question about Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States.

Why would that be, do you suppose?

Could it be because, under the known circumstances, he was, in fact, eligible?

Or was it a grand conspiracy, organized by the almight "they"? Or was everybody -- literally everybody -- paralyzed by Obama's semi-blackness?

Occam's Razor supports the notion that it's the former...

167
posted on 07/21/2013 11:42:58 AM PDT
by okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARAD in the past.E)

The definition of the term, natural born citizen, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattels definition when he said:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . .   John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291} http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

--------

So.....how many people does it take in your world to make a baby?

168
posted on 07/21/2013 11:44:32 AM PDT
by MamaTexan
(I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)

Perhaps you can explain why the Founders wrote a Constitution that specifies that for the eligibility for POTUSA a person must be ‘NATURAL born citizen’ and then specified for Congresspersons simply a ‘citizen’. Certainly the Founders were educated and I believe would not have made such a distinction in such an important document if they had not intended such. A ‘natural born citizen’ by the Founders dialogs has several specific tags. I see no need to replace original intention with modern day expediency.

Before you continue to flaunt your ignorance of the Constitution and the law, please read up on Article 1 and the first naturalization act where Congress exercises it’s enumerated powers and expressly states that NBC do not have to be born on US soil.

I've long thought the BC crap was a canard, but there's some sort of issue there, likely not place of birth though. Hawaii was notoriously loosey-goosey in that regard. Most likely Obama’s puffed up autobiographies would somehow be shown to be complete and total fabrication.

“To determine if you were born a U.S. citizen, USCIS must look at the law that was in effect at the time of your birth.”

Congress does not have Constitutional authority to write legislation effecting the citizenship of a U.S. Citizen. The 14th Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution. The INA does not apply to U.S. Citizens, only foreign nationals who would like to become U.S. citizens.

If Ted Cruz were truly a U.S. Citizen at birth, then Congress would not have Constitutional authority to write and pass legislation to establish terms and conditions for him to be issued a Certificate of Citizenship. Only the Executive Branch has Constitutional authority to impact a U.S. Citizen with respect to citizenship status; i.e. issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

Since USCIS is an agency of the Executive Branch, it does not have the authority to rely on legislation passed by Congress to determine citizenship status. It can only look to the U.S. Constitution for authority.

For USCIS to establish jurisdiction and determine if it has the Constitutional authority to make a determination of a person, USCIS must first determine one or both of the parents lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. Otherwise, the U.S. Executive Branch would not authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Canadian born child.

Since the Canadian born child is a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship status, Congress does have authority to write and pass legislation setting terms and conditions, i.e. one U.S. Citizen parent must have been a resident of the U.S. for 5 years prior to their 19th birthday, etc ...

A child born aboard must be considered a foreign national seeking U.S. Citizenship before USCIS can follow Federal Law to determine citizenship status of the child.

185
posted on 07/21/2013 12:00:46 PM PDT
by SvenMagnussen
(1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)

Then by my understanding, he isn't "natural born". That was Chester A. Arthur's concern, apparently, that his father didn't become a citizen until after his birth, making him ineligible for the presidency. He seemed to have hidden the exact circumstances of his birth most of his life due to that very issue if I'm not wrong.

Way back when (McCain, Panama?) I read that in the old days if a child were born of English parents on French soil, he was a “natural born” subject of the King, and that our concept of “natural born” citizen comes from that part of English law. Also, this was what the founding fathers thought everyone understood.

Most of the quiet discussion I’ve seen since then seems to correspond to that. More heated discussions have been all over the map.

I agree with Ted Cruz that he is eligible to be president and I support his candidacy. The people who deny Cruz's qualifications are lightweights who somehow got themselves tangled up in an 18th century French text written by a Swiss "philosopher" who argued that the State has first claim on the labor of every citizen.

Personally, I find the opinion of Ted Cruz (Harvard law) to be more persuasive. However, I recognize that under our Constitution, the voters and their electors have the sole power and duty to select our presidents and to approve or disapprove of a candidate's qualifications.

Ted Cruz - 2016

190
posted on 07/21/2013 12:04:29 PM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

The issue of who is a Natural Born Citizen has never been actually been legally defined as I understand it.

This would be partly correct. I would say that it has been partly defined legally. Here are the opinions I have heard on the matter:

1. Born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen, except in very rare cases. IE, a child to diplomats and borne on embassy grounds.That's correct. Virtually everyone born in the United States is, legally speaking, a natural born citizen.

The major legal case that established this was US v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898).

Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not US citizens and completely ineligible ever to become US citizens. His parents returned to China. He made two trips to China, the first time being admitted back into the US without incident on the grounds that he was a citizen. The second time, the customs and immigration authorities denied him re-entry, claiming that since he was Chinese he was not a US citizen in spite of the fact that he had been born in San Francisco.

Wong took his case through our legal system, and it reached the Supreme Court which declared that he was a citizen.

In the final declaration, since that's the question they were asked ("Is Wong a citizen?") that's what they said: "Wong is a citizen."

The entire RATIONALE of the case, which is legally binding precedent on a level equal with the final declaration, had to do with who is, and who is not, a NATURAL BORN citizen.

The implications of this natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility were also discussed in the case, including by the dissent (a lone 2 Justices), who pointed out in the dissent that this meant that US-born Chinermen and members of other "inferior" races are eligible to the Presidency.

So in spite of the claim of birthers, who refuse to recognize the entire rationale of the Wong case as the precedent it is, the case established a crystal clear precedent.

If you were born in the United States to non-citizen, non-diplomat parents who were residing here, then you're a natural born citizen.

The children-of-diplomats exception is one that goes back for many centuries in US, colonial and (originally) English law.

The historical exceptions were: children of diplomats, children of foreign royalty, and children of invading armies.

So if Prince William and Kate were to come over to the United States and have their royal baby born in a hospital in New York City, according to the historical exceptions, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.

If diplomats of the UK or some other country have a baby here, that baby, historically, is considered to be born under the legal umbrella of that nation and not our own. So historically speaking, that baby would not be a natural born US citizen.

And if Russia were to invade and seize the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, and hold it for a couple of years, and members of that invading army were to have a child in Fairbanks, it would not be a US citizen.

Except that exception is so extremely rare historically that I'm not quite sure what it would really mean. I would think that it would only exclude the child of a member of a foreign invading army that that soldier had with a mother who was not a US citizen. Because if a child's mother is a US citizen, then the child is a US citizen as well.

A couple of issues weren't necessarily addressed by the Wong decision, because they weren't really a factor in those days: Children of illegal aliens, and birth tourism.

Legally, one could argue that illegal aliens are not submitting to our legal system and laws, and therefore their children are not natural born citizens. Our current practice is that such children born here ARE natural born citizens. But I don't know that necessarily has to be the case. Not that it really matters, however. There does not exist the will in Congress to pass a law excluding such children from citizenship, and probably never will.

Birth tourism is a small but real issue. Still, the Wong decision was based on a case of RESIDENT non-citizen parents. So there's probably some wiggle-room to exclude anchor babies as well. Again, IF there were the will to do it. Which I doubt.

2. Some say that both parent must be Americans at the time of the Childs birth.

Very, VERY few people have ever made this claim throughout our history. The very few who have, were usually people with little or no authority who were strongly contradicted by the vast majority of scholars.

3. Some say that as long as you never had to be naturalized to become a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. I believe this is the case with Cruz.

That's really the bottom line.

Strictly speaking, the case of a Ted Cruz has not been judicially decided.

But historically, from the very beginning of our Republic, when push comes to shove, the "real" definition of natural born citizen has always pretty much been "born a citizen" or "citizen by birth."

There have always been only two categories: Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

The first includes everyone who was born a citizen. The latter includes everyone who became a citizen after birth, through some process of naturalization.

It also seems very clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended for folks like Ted Cruz to be eligible to be President. The First Congress immediately passed a law declaring that the children born overseas to American parents were to be counted as natural born citizens. So it is clear that they intended those children to be eligible to the Presidency as well.

A later Congress changed the wording, dropping the words "natural born." But legally and historically speaking, my firm opinion is that that really doesn't matter. We could get into a lot of the details as to why, but this post is too long already.

I will briefly mention one of those details.

In 1834, James Bayard wrote "A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

In that exposition, he wrote very specifically and very clearly that it was NOT necessary to be born in the United States in order to be Constitutionally eligible to be President. It was only necessary to be born a citizen, or to be a citizen by birth.

That was an explicit declaration that people like Ted Cruz are eligible.

Bayards exposition was read and approved by none other than Chief Justice John Marshall, the Great Chief Justice who dominated the US Supreme Court for 35 years starting just 13 years after the Constitution was adopted. Marshall had one minor correction to make. Other than that, he said, he hadn't seen anything in the entire book he didn't agree with.

If anyone was in a position to know what the Founders meant by the term, it was Chief Justice Marshall. From his approving letter to Bayard, its clear that he read Bayards book. And he would not have missed such an important matter as who was eligible to be President.

So while the case of a person born a US citizen abroad has never yet reached the Supreme Court, there are some very strong legal, historical and common sense arguments that such people are equally eligible. I haven't been able to find a single major legal scholar who thinks that someone like Ted Cruz is not eligible.

Here's what I would expect if Ted Cruz runs for and is elected President.

I would expect that someone would file a court case challenging his eligibility.

And then I would expect that our court system would affirm his eligibility. It would probably be appealed up to the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court would hear the appeal or just decline to hear it and let it stand, I'm not sure. My gut feeling is that they definitely would hear it if a lower court said he was ineligible, and they would probably hear it if the lower courts said he was eligible.

If we have a lawyer out there who can provide an opinion, I would love to hear it.

I am not a lawyer by training. But I do understand the legal principles involved. And I've thoroughly digested the history of the issue, including all of the major legal cases throughout history (which I've read), and looked very closely at all of the legal and historical precedent.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.